Share This article

In the United States, regulations on cable companies are somewhat confusing. For example, they are required by the FCC to offer CableCards for third-party set-top boxes, but the local and state governments will often effectively give cable companies monopolies over whole populated areas. It’s a mess. Back in 2010, the FCC mandated that cable companies offer cable boxes with an IP interface by December 1, 2012. Well, in spite of the original deadline, the FCC has postponed the requirement until June of 2014. Even on the federal level, regulations still can’t be put in order.

Despite having two whole years to come up with something, TiVo still filed for the extension, and the wishy-washy FCC has granted it. In the memo released by the FCC, it explains that it will not pick a single standard for the cable companies to adhere to. It suggests that the DLNA premium video profile is a good example of an open standard, but it won’t mandate it. The FCC simply demands that the companies pick a standard that “…supports the required features of recordable high-definition video, closed captioning data, service discovery, video transport, and remote control command pass-through.”

Sadly, the FCC clarifies later in the same memo that it doesn’t even require the cable companies to use the same standard. “[As] with the physical interface itself, we find that it is appropriate, at this time, to refrain from specifying the exact manner in which this baseline of functionality is to be implemented.” That means that the commission doesn’t even require the use of a standard Ethernet port. Effectively, this means that the desired effect of allowing consumers to buy a third-party device like a TiVo, plug it in directly, and expect it to work without any sort of hassle isn’t going to happen.

As with the requirement for CableCards, the cable companies will undoubtedly comply with the letter of the law, but they will make it as unpleasant as possible. Most of them will want you to rent or buy their own DVR device, so they’ll do whatever they can to circumvent ease of interoperability. Don’t be surprised when you have to fight with your cable company just to get a box with an IP-based video out. Then you’ll have to search for just the right model of third-party device that works with your cable company’s standard of choice. Since the FCC won’t make a stand, don’t expect the landscape to improve much by 2014. You’ll still be able to use third-party devices, but it’ll still be a pain in the neck to find the right one and to get it to work properly.

Tagged In

Post a Comment

As it has been since, well, as long as I’ve been alive, it remains absurd that the federal government won’t regulate an industry it has complete authority over when the need is clear.

The IP interface issue is only the latest fallout from this failure, and frankly is one of the least relevant among the large list of consequences it has produced.

I’m not sure what they think they’re accomplishing by keeping their hands off the cable companies, but the fruits of their lack of effort are major wastes of time and money on a national level. Their inaction is completely pointless, regardless of who behind the scenes might be profiting off it.

Joel Detrow

They’re accomplishing heavier pockets, that’s what.

http://twitter.com/booksorcerer Jeffrey Clinard

The problems with cable companies start at the local level. City councils give monopoly contracts to cable companies instead of allowing competition. You can see the result – high prices, bad service, and no incentive to allow any third party hardware. Remember the days when the phone company wouldn’t allow third party devices, like answering machines, and you were locked into renting their telephones at their prices?

Blame your city council and demand they allow competition.

http://twitter.com/1972AJM Eric Wright

The FCC does listen to petitions for change, and the US people have the right to file complaints and petitions for forming a standard… and DLNA is such a reasonable way to go it should have been accepted as a valid standard to meet as a minimum requirement, allowing the operators to also implement their own standard as long as it allows DLNA also.

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.